Film-maker objects to waterfront holiday village

FILM-MAKER Neil Jordan is for a second time objecting to a waterfront holiday village almost next door to his West Cork home.

Mr Jordan said yesterday he was left with no option but to oppose the Beara peninsula project which includes 41 holiday homes and a leisure centre.

His clash with the private developer hinges on a legal covenant being provided that a swimming pool, to which the public will have access, will be built at the same time as the tax-incentive holiday homes project.

“My sole reason for seeking leave to appeal the development was that no guarantee was given that the swimming pool would be built,” he said yesterday.

However, developer John Burke said yesterday he was not aware of a legal covenant being sought. “Had a request been made, I would have been delighted to give it,” he said. The developer claimed the leisure amenity was a fundamental element of the tourism-related project. “Any insinuation that it is my intention not to build the pool is misleading.”

In April 2003, Bord Pleanála refused planning for 68 holiday homes and a marina at the former Wheel Inn holiday centre site at Cappaghavuckee, close to Mr Jordan’s residence at Waterfall several miles from Castletownbere. Last May, a representative of the developer, along with two locals, met Mr Jordan and outlined proposals for a scaled-down scheme on the derelict site.

Mr Burke said Mr Jordan was “satisfied” with the revised application, but did not request a legal covenant in relation to the swimming pool.

“Since we learned of Mr Jordan’s appeal, every effort has been made to contact him or his legal advisors. Telephone calls and correspondence have gone unanswered,” said Mr Burke, who insisted: “No request for any covenant has ever been made to me.”

However, Mr Jordan said yesterday: “A request for a legal covenant was made by my solicitor, Joe Noonan, on June 4, 2003, immediately after the meeting with Mr Burke’s representative.

“We received a reply from Mr Burke’s solicitors, on June 20, 2003. In their reply, they did not give a guarantee but forwarded a statement from the consulting engineer. I don’t want to get involved in an argument, but we did approach them and their reply for a legal covenant was unsatisfactory.”

A second appellant, Robáird Mac Giollarnaith, also objected on the grounds the project is out of character in scale and design in addition to its visual impact.

Mr Jordan said yesterday he initially agreed to meet the developer’s representative and reconsider his objection due to the importance of the proposed swimming pool to the people of the area, which is lacking in such amenities.

“The prospect of such an amenity in the area was the sole reason for me withdrawing my objection to a huge development, effectively a village next to my home.”